Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Senate Staffer Energizes Movement To Lawfully Revoke Congressional Power

It only takes one.

A credible threat of a constitutional convention is the needed leverage to compel Congress to impeach the President before the 2006 election.

Link here

[ There is a Constitutional Convention Archive [ Click ]

Senate Staffer Energizes Movement To Lawfully Revoke Congressional Power

I wanted to introduce you to someone who had a problem with the Congress. They were treated rudely and not given help: [Ref: Click ]

Before I do that, I thought I would use this as a good opportunity to announce the Constitutional Convention planning, and the specific state level effort to revoke the power of Congress to self-regulate. [Links: Constitutional Convention, lawfully revoking abused powers]

Article 1 section 5 of the constitution gives Congress the power to make and enforce rules. Despite this delegated power from the People, the Congress has deemed it appropriate to assent to this unlawful Presidential rebellion against the constitution.

Regardless the reason, the purpose of the constitution is to protect rights and prevent the abuse of power.

It is our view that the Congress has failed to lawfully assert power. It appears this failure is linked to a simple problem: There are no rules that mandate that the Congress rise above the party and lawfully assert the power of Congress against a Presidential rebellion or war crimes. Rather, the rules permit Members of Congress to continue rubber stamping legislation for unlawful activity.

This is not appropriate and not consistent with the framers intent: To protect rights and prevent the abuse of power.

One remedy is to lawfully revoke the power of Congress to discipline its members, and assign that job to a new body under the control of the states.

This transfer of power is needed. The Congress refuses to do what must be done to lawfully tame this Presidential Rebellion.

The following anecdote is what has renewed our faith that the Congress must choose: Whether it supports the President’s rebellion; or whether it is going to assert the power of Congress to check unlawful abuse of power.

This Congress chooses to assent to the Rebellion. They have made an error.

Moving in parallel with this effort is the state proclamation effort. It moves in the shadows, and is lurking: The effort will lawfully mandate – per House rule 603 – that the House Members show whether they are for or against the Rule of law: Namely, are they willing to impeach the President. [Links: Progress on the 603 Effort]

It doesn’t matter what the House does. The way forward is to know that despite the overwhelming evidence, the Congress refuses to assert the rule of law.

We need not go on endless fact finding – there is no evidence of WMD. Rather, it is clear this President has abused power. He has violated FISA.

The way forward is to lawfully end this president’s tenure in the White House and reassert the rule of law. But Congress assents to this rebellion.

Thus, the states shall continue their planning for a Constitutional Convention.

Know where this started. One small error has launched this effort. The Congress has refused to do what it should do; the states are prepared to act.

* * *

As you read this reasonable grievance, know that we can create new rules mandating that Congress assert its power, check unlawful conduct, and be disciplined for unlawfully supporting illegal wars.

This Congress refuses to make rules to protect our Constitution. This Congress has failed.

We the People must seriously discuss lawfully revoking the power of Congress that is abused – and not asserted – so that we may protect our rights and prevent this President from abusing his power.

Congress has failed. The States and citizens of America shall now lead.

* * *

Remember this name: Patrick Meighan

As a courtesy, I have reposted the letter below, and made a few changes in the text-spelling for your convenience. Here is where you can find his original comment: [ Click ]

Thank you Patrick Meighan for sharing your story, and letting us know how a Senate Staffer rudely treated you. Their conduct has significantly energized the ongoing effort to lawfully revoke the powers this Federal Government abuses and refuses to assert.

Note: Mr. Meighan may not necessarily endorse our plan. It is up to him to decide what he would like to do.

In the meantime, we're moving forward to assert the rule of law, protect this Constitution, protect our rights, and compel this Presidential rebellion to end.

Our right is to be free of abusive power. We have the lawful right to revoke the powers of this Federal Government when they abuse the delegated power of The People.

* * *

The Letter That Started It All [ Ref ]

Patrick Meighan said...

I just got off the phone with Senator Feinstein's phone-answerer in D.C., approx. 1:48pm (PST).

Said I was a constituent of the Senator's, and asked if the Senator had taken a stance on Senator Feingold's motion to impeach. Was told that, no, no stance was yet taken.

Said I couldn't imagine how Senator Feinstein could have voted to censure President A for having sex with an intern, and not censure President B for eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant in direct and flagrant violation of a law that has been on the books for 30 years. Was told that, no, the Senator had in fact voted to censure President A for perjury.

Said I couldn't imagine how Senator Feinstein could have voted to censure President A for perjuring himself over sex with an intern, and not censure President B for eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant in direct and flagrant violation of a law that has been on the books for 30 years. Was told, "I'll pass on your thoughts."

Said I'd like to remind Senator Feinstein that there is no Intelligence Committee investigation for the Senator to wait on before taking a stance on Senator Feingold's motion, because Senators Hagel and Snowe have reversed themselves and voted against Intelligence Committee hearings. Was told that, no, a special subcommittee of 3 Dems and 3 Repubs continues to hear testimony on the subject, and that Senator Feinstein sits on said subcommittee, and that Senator Feinstein just yesterday heard testimony from an NSA Official.

Asked if that special subcommittee, on which Senator Feinstein sits, has the power to compel testimony, or issue subpoenas. Was told by my Senator's aide that he did not have that information, and had no way to acquire that information.

Opined that I had little hope that said special subcommittee, on which Senator Feinstein sits, bore much chance of relevatory fruit, in light of Senator Feinstein's own aide being unaware of whether or not said subcommittee (or any individual member of said subcommittee) had the power to compel testimony, or issue subpoenas. Asked when the Senator's Aide might be able to acquire an answer to the above-asked question. Was, instead, offered a forward to the committee staff to perhaps get an answer to my question.

Declined said offer, and expressed my preference that my Senator's aide seek out an answer to my question as to whether or not my Senator's special subcommittee (or any individual member of said subcommittee) had the power to compel testimony, or issue subpoenas. Asked when my Senator's aide may be able to acquire that information for me. Was summarily hung up on by my Senator's aide.

Constituent service, Di-Fi style.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
7:38 PM

[Note: Modified, adjustments to minor spelling]

* * *

Note: This is not legal advice, but intended to be illustrative of what we are facing; talk to an attorney you trust

Response to Mr. Meighan

To: Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

Dear Patrick Meighan,

Thank you for posting.

I'm sorry you were treated rudely by one of Our Nation's Staff Members. Page 184 of the Senate Rules appears to have some relationship to your issue; I encourage you to review the standards of conduct and choose who you wish to proceed. Know that you have the right to complain about the way you were treated, and that you have my full support.

Section 8 outlines the way you should have been treated. You have the constitutional right to petition them for grievances.

Also, you can call your Representative -- yes, on the House side -- and say that you are not impressed with how the rules are being enforced. If they think you are joking, you can communicate to them the nature of the Proposed action to lawfully revoke the power of the Congress to self-regulate their member conduct and have that power taken back by the states in a Constitutional Convention.

This is a serious effort underway in order to mandate the Congress lawfully assert the power to check the President; if Congress does not assent to this requirement, the states may lawfully revoke their power to self-regulate, by changing the language in Article 1 Section 5 in a Constitutional Convention.

I urge you to remind the Staff that the power to "make rules" can be lawfully revoked by the States.

On the House side, there are ethics rules which bar unprofessional conduct. Rule 11 bars conduct that brings discredit upon the House -- there are similar rules related to professionalism.

The Code in rule 23 has a very general phrase that appears to be applicable -- "1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.

It appears as though you have first hand information -- ie you are a witness with probative, admissible evidence -- that you could reduce to writing, show that are staff member appears to have violated rule 23.

You can either ignore it; you can blog about it; you can call the media/editors; you can call the radio; and/or you can file an official complaint with your Senator and the House Rules Committee.

. . .

As to your question, "Asked if that special subcommittee, on which Senator Feinstein sits, has the power to compel testimony, or issue subpoenas." -- I do not have an answer.

However, perhaps this may be of interest -- and a potential alternative.

The current NSA IG regulations require the NSA IG to respond to a ranking member request for an investigation. Here are the details: [ Click ]

Getting back to your question: If they respond, "I don't know," perhaps a follow-up question of: "OK, you don't know -- how about a Senator asserting what is currently possible: The Ranking Member on the Subcommittee directing the NSA IG to [a] review the matters; and [b] provide a full report; and [c] provide a public/non-classified report; and [d] respond to questions in open.

Although you were treated rudely, perhaps you or someone else could return the call and say, "Hay, you gave me a really good idea -- I looked some things up and have found this as a solution -- can you comment on whether this approach at the link is something that you can inquire into and get back to me by the end of the day?"


You have my full support. If you want to "take this on" -- meaning start the effort to get this rule changed, and make some meaningful consequence -- ie start a Constitutional Convention -- you have my full support.

If you need assistance, you can see the other people in the state Proclamation effort who will be happy to lend a hand. Let them know you and I have "spoken" and that they should help you out in any way.

It will be your responsibility to set up a blog, make the contacts, and document what has or has not happened.

If think "you cannot make a difference," I offer you a simple example: This is what one person did: Mobilized a nation to look at Hour Rule Rule 603 -- how to lawfully force the Congress to do what it refuse to do: Vote on impeachment, not hide it in Committee..

Overall, it's up to you -- and you're not alone. You have the links, the internet, and you can invite others to rally around you and get this on the Constitutional Convention Agenda. If you are interested getting this resolved, I can assure you that it is within your power to mobilize many others to your cause.

The Congress has a major problem: The People know there are alternatives to defective service and a failure to lawfully assert power.

Best wishes!